Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Campbell v. Berryhill

United States District Court, S.D. Alabama, Southern Division

February 19, 2019

DEMETRIUS DELANO CAMPBELL, Plaintiff,
v.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

          WILLIAM E. CASSADY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         Plaintiff brings this action, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c)(3), seeking judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying his claims for a period of disability, disability insurance benefits, and supplemental security income. The parties have consented to the exercise of jurisdiction by the Magistrate Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), for all proceedings in this Court. (Docs. 27 & 28 (“In accordance with provisions of 28 U.S.C. §636(c) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 73, the parties in this case consent to have a United States magistrate judge conduct any and all proceedings in this case, . . . order the entry of a final judgment, and conduct all post-judgment proceedings.”)). Upon consideration of the administrative record, Plaintiff's brief, the Commissioner's brief, and the arguments of counsel at the September 19, 2018 hearing before the Court, it is determined that the Commissioner's decision denying benefits should be reversed and remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this decision.[1]

         I. Procedural Background

         Plaintiff filed applications for a period of disability, disability insurance benefits, and supplemental security income on or about August 5, 2014, alleging disability beginning on July 3, 2014. (See Tr. 197-209.) Campbell's claims were initially denied on January 5, 2015 (Tr. 138-39; see also Tr. 140-46) and, following Plaintiff's January 22, 2015 written request for a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) (see Tr. 149-50), a hearing was conducted before an ALJ on June 8, 2016 (Tr. 180-98). On September 15, 2016, the ALJ issued a decision finding that the claimant was not disabled and, therefore, not entitled to a period of disability, disability insurance benefits, or supplemental security income. (Tr. 62-73.) More specifically, the ALJ proceeded to the fifth step of the five-step sequential evaluation process and determined that Campbell retains the residual functional capacity to perform medium work and, more specifically, those light jobs identified by the vocational expert (“VE”) during the administrative hearing (compare Id. at 67-73 with Tr. 94-95). On November 14, 2016, the Plaintiff appealed the ALJ's unfavorable decision to the Appeals Council (Tr. 195); the Appeals Council denied Campbell's request for review on August 8, 2017 (Tr. 1-4). Thus, the hearing decision became the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security.

         Plaintiff alleges disability due to diabetes mellitus with associated complications, peripheral neuropathy, proteinuria, stroke syndrome, and hypertension. The ALJ made the following relevant findings:

3. The claimant has the following severe impairments: diabetes with proteinuria, neuropathy, hypertension, obesity, and history of cerebrovascular accident with right hemi-sensory loss (20 CFR 404.1520(c) and 416.920(c)).
. . .
4. The claimant does not have an impairment or combination of impairments that meets or medically equals the severity of one of the listed impairments in 20 CFR Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1 (20 CFR 404.1520(d), 404.1525, 404.1526, 416.920(d), 416.925 and 416.926).
. . .
5. After careful consideration of the entire record, the undersigned finds that the claimant has the residual functional capacity to perform a medium work as defined in 20 CFR 404.1567(c) and 416.967(c) except he would be able to stand two hours at a time or two hours total in an eight-hour workday, and walk two hours at a time or two hours total in an eight-hour workday. He would never be able to climb ladders, ropes or scaffolds. He would be able to occasionally climb ramps and stairs as well as occasionally balance, stoop, kneel, crouch, and crawl. He would be able to perform frequent operation of foot controls and could tolerate occasional exposure to unprotected heights, moving mechanical parts, dust, fumes, odors, gases, extreme heat, and extreme cold. He could tolerate frequent exposure to humidity, wetness, and vibration, and could frequently operate motor vehicles.
. . . . . .
6. The claimant is unable to perform any past relevant work (20 CFR 404.1565 and 416.965).
. . .
7. The claimant was born on November 14, 1979 and was 34 years old, which is defined as a younger individual age 18-49, on the alleged disability onset ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.